Hi Jonathan, Jonathan Nieder writes: > Some noise about Cc and Reviewed-by tags: > > - I have been using Cc lines in patches to say "I consider this > person something of a maintainer of the subsystem in question > and would be particularly interested in his or her opinion." > The idea is that if the patch does not get acked and a Cc line > remains, people can tell that from the log. The benefits: > > 1) I remember to cc them > 2) later it is easy to find who looks like a maintainer > 3) the lack of ack is more obvious > > Checking Linux's Documentation/SubmittingPatches, I find that > that is a misuse on my part (sorry). A person passing on a patch > to Linus is rather supposed to _add_ a Cc line in the rare event > that they want to explain that a certain person had an opportunity > to comment but did not comment (so Linus can know about their > indifference to the patch, I guess). > > Neither use is as important for git, where many people read the > list so it is not as important to cc people to get proper review. > > - I also used to abuse Cc lines to fit in contact information for a > person who helped me, until I learned to use Helped-by and similar > neologisms for that. Sorry. > > - Again from Documentation/SubmittingPatches, I learned a while ago > that Reviewed-by, unlike Acked-by, can only be offered by the > reviewer and means that she is satisfied that the patch is ready > for application. > > If you just want to credit Matthieu, I suppose it would make sense to > say "Thanks to Matthieu Moy for such-and-such" somewhere. Thanks for the lengthy explanation. Perhaps we can document this in Git's SubmittingPatches? Are all these tags useful? Should I include more such as "Mentored-by" or explicity mention that the contributor is free to come up with other freeform tags as she deems appropriate? Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@xxxxxxxxx> -- 8< -- diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches index ece3c77..84c9eaa 100644 --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -264,12 +264,25 @@ the change to its true author (see (2) above). Also notice that a real name is used in the Signed-off-by: line. Please don't hide your real name. -Some people also put extra tags at the end. - -"Acked-by:" says that the patch was reviewed by the person who -is more familiar with the issues and the area the patch attempts -to modify. "Tested-by:" says the patch was tested by the person -and found to have the desired effect. +Some extra tags you can use in the end along with their meanings are: + +1. "Reported-by:" is used to to credit someone who found the bug that + the patch attempts to fix. +2. "Acked-by:" says that the patch was acknowledged by the person who + is more familiar with the issues and the area the patch attempts to + modify. +3. "Reviewed-by:", unlike the other tags, can only be offered by the + reviewer and means that she is completely satisfied that the patch + is ready for application. It is usually offered only after a + detailed review. +4. "Tested-by:" is used to indicate that the person applied the patch + and found it to have the desired effect. +5. "Thanks-to:" is a more broad term used to credit someone who helped + with the patch in some way. The person perhaps gave an idea or + reviewed some part of the patch without awarding a "Reviewed-by". +6. "Based-on-patch-by:" is used to credit the person whose patch yours + is based on. The original patch was probably not considered for + inclusion due to several reasons. ------------------------------------------------ An ideal patch flow -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html